Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states 'input discarded', and each parameter description repeats that the value is discarded after a 'shape check' or similar. This gives a minor hint about behavior (inputs are not used for computation), but it does not disclose side effects, return values, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one short phrase), but it lacks essential information. It is not well-structured or front-loaded with the most important details, as the core purpose is missing. The parameter descriptions are uniform and add little structural value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no clear explanation of what the tool does, the description is grossly incomplete. There is no information about expected return values, failure modes, or how this tool fits into a workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described as being discarded after a check. This provides some semantics – the values are not used – but it is repetitive and does not clarify what the 'shape checks' are or how the parameters relate to the tool's purpose. All parameters are optional, further reducing their meaningfulness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'djb2 hex, input discarded' is cryptic and fails to clearly state the tool's purpose. It hints at a djb2 hash or a validation, but the actual function (e.g., what it returns, what it validates) is not explained. The tool name 'djb2-ok' suggests a check, but no concrete operation is described.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, validate-json). The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.